A new brain study from Harvard (Choi et al. 2015) has prompted Phillipe Grandjean, author of Only One Chance, (Oxford Universtiry Press, 2013) to challenge the spin being used by fluoridation promoters to downplay the studies that have found an association between exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ. This commentary (Mottled fluoride debate) appears on Grandjean’s website (Chemical Brain Drain) and is printed in full below. Grandjean explains that for the children tested,

“Their lifetime exposures to fluoride from drinking water covered the full range allowed in the US. Among the findings, children with fluoride-induced mottling of their teeth – even the mildest forms that appears as whitish specks on the enamel – showed lower performance on some neuropsychological tests. This observation runs contrary to popular wisdom that the enamel effects represent a cosmetic problem only and not a sign of toxicity. At least one of five American children has some degree of mottling of their teeth.” (my emphasis, PC)

I would add that this comment further underlines the “mistake” being perpetrated by the officials at the EPA’s Office of Water who are incorrectly treating severe dental fluorosis as the most sensitive endpoint of fluoride’s toxicity in their risk assessment to determine a safe water goal (the MCLG) for fluoride. The end point of most concern should be lowered IQ.

Grandjean states, “Prevention of chemical brain drain should be considered at least as important as protection against caries.”

This very important commentary from Grandjean has more than justified the nearly 19 years effort by the Fluoride Action Network to draw the world’s attention to fluoride’s neurotoxicity (see www.FluorideAlert.org/issues/health/brain). Now that leading researchers in neuro-toxicology like Grandjean and Bellinger (another co-author of the most recent Choi paper) are articulating our long-held concerns perhaps more people will listen. But for people to listen they have to be told. The mass media is not telling them but we are. To continue this important educational effort (which has included paying to have many of the 42 IQ studies to be translated from Chinese) takes money. Please consider contributing to our annual fundraiser. Here is an update on that.

Fundraising Update

We picked up some more momentum yesterday as we raised $2942 from 19 donors (including Dr. Mercola’s doubling – he is doubling every donation up to a total of $86,000).

This brings us to grand total of $55,953 from 299 donors, en route to our mini-goal of $100,000 by midnight Christmas Eve.

Now for some exciting news. Another one of our angels has pledged to double every donation from $56,000 till we reach $60,000 (and that’s before Dr. Mercola’ s doubling pledge). This means for the next $2000 donated, each of your dollars donated will be quadrupled!

To help us to step up the numbers of donors (so critical in convincing small foundations that we have public support for our cause) this same angel has pledged a further $2,000 if we can reach a total of 500 donors by Christmas Eve. That means we need 201 more donors in 7 days – can we do that? Let’s have some fun trying.

Talking about fun don’t forget the pack of playing cards with the 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation spelled out. This could be a real collector’s item in the future (especially when the whole pack of cards of fluoridation falls!). You can get one pack for a donation of $99 – but the best deal of the century – you can get four packs for $104 (will make great party gifts). Please use these dollar amounts because (as with other premiums) they are code for us. Meanwhile imagine the headline, “Card players mobilize to end fluoridation.”

17 December 2014. A meta-analysis on IQ deficits in children exposed to elevated levels of fluoride in drinking water spurred much discussion in the US, mostly in regard to the safety of water fluoridation. The 27 studies reviewed in the study were mainly from China and covered exposures similar to those that occur in areas with fluoridated water and up to 10 times that level. Although children in the high-fluoride areas showed an average IQ 7 points below the controls, the dose-dependence of such deficits is uncertain.

To explore the association further, the team behind the meta-analysis carried out a pilot study in rural Sichuan, China. The results have just been released. The researchers used the best available and feasible approaches to exposure assessment and cognitive testing of 51 children. Their lifetime exposures to fluoride from drinking water covered the full range allowed in the US. Among the findings, children with fluoride-induced mottling of their teeth – even the mildest forms that appears as whitish specks on the enamel – showed lower performance on some neuropsychological tests. This observation runs contrary to popular wisdom that the enamel effects represent a cosmetic problem only and not a sign of toxicity. At least one of five American children has some degree of mottling of their teeth.

The safety of fluoridation for caries prevention is being defended in a recent commentary that claims that the meta-analysis of 27 studies had been “severely criticized”, although this critique is not further explained. As evidence of safety, the authors refer to a New Zealand study that “found that fluoridation is not neurotoxic for either children or adults, and does not have a negative effect on IQ”. This interpretation is rather optimistic, as the statistical confidence limits suggest that a loss of 2-3 IQ pointscould not be excluded by their findings.

Prevention of caries is an important goal, but that does not justify an exaggeration of fluoridation safety. In the past, scientific evidence on other neurotoxicants, such as lead, mercury, and certain pesticides, has been similarly misconstrued by vested interests. Although the link between mottled teeth and brain toxicity still needs to be further characterized, the existence of uncertainty is no excuse for mottling the debate with hyperbole. Prevention of chemical brain drain should be considered at least as important as protection against caries.